2 U.S.C. § 1220
Transferred
[transferred]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases, 1992–2009 · leading case: Dyer v. Radcliffe, 169 F. Supp. 2d 770 (S.D. Ohio 2001).
Dyer v. Radcliffe, 169 F. Supp. 2d 770 (S.D. Ohio 2001). “2 U.S.C. § 1220 (b). Unlike Title VII, however, under GERA the EEOC then issues a “final order” in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.”
Alaska v. EEOC, 564 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2009). “at 1097-98, codified at 2 U.S.C. § 1220 (a) (1994), defined the employees who were entitled to the protections of Section 302 of GERA to include state and local political appointees: The rights, protections, and remedies provided pursuant to section 302 [establishing the right…”
Stitz v. City of Eureka Springs, 9 F. Supp. 2d 1046 (W.D. Ark. 1998). “2 U.S.C.A. § 1220 (a) (1997). The GERA permits any individual to file a complaint alleging a violation with the EEOC within 180 days after the occurrence of the alleged violation.”
Guy v. State of Illinois, 958 F. Supp. 1300 (N.D. Ill. 1997). “2 U.S.C. § 1220 (b)(1). At that point, “any party aggrieved by a final order” can obtain judicial review pursuant to 28 U.”
Off. of the Lake Cnty. State's Attorney v. Human Rights Comm'n, 601 N.E.2d 1294 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992). “(See 2 U.S.C.A. § 1220 (West Supp.1992) (effective Nov.”
Darold L. Rutland v. Mike Moore, Attorney Gen. of the State of Mississippi, 54 F.3d 226 (5th Cir. 1995). “2 U.S.C. § 1220 (a). 3 Because the age discrimination claimed by Rutland occurred before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, we must determine whether this part of the Act should be applied retrospectively.”
Butler v. New York State Dep't of Law, 998 F. Supp. 336 (S.D.N.Y. 1998). “, which requires a final determination by the EEOC appealable only to the United States Court of Appeals, see 2 U.S.C. § 1220 (b)-(c); 28 U.S.C. §§ 2341-42 ; McNulty v.”
Stubblefield v. City of Jackson, Miss., 871 F. Supp. 903 (S.D. Miss. 1994). “2 U.S.C. § 1220 (b). The EEOC has yet to publish its regulations and procedures for use under § 1220.”
McNulty v. New York City Dep't of Fin., 941 F. Supp. 452 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). “(the “1991 Act”), which requires a complainant to await a determination by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”) prior to initiating legal action, which McNulty has not done, and denies them de novo review on appeal to the federal district court, 2 U.S.C. §…”
Mcnulty v. New York Dept. of Fin., 941 F. Supp. 452 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). “(the "1991 Act"), which requires a complainant to await a determination by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC") prior to initiating legal action, which McNulty has not done, and denies them de novo review on appeal to the federal district court, 2 U.S.C. §…”
State of Alaska v. Eeoc (9th Cir. 2009). “at 1097-98, codified at 2 U.S.C. § 1220 (a) (1994), defined the employees who were entitled to the protec- tions of Section 302 of GERA to include state and local political appoin- tees: The rights, protections, and remedies provided pursuant to sec- tion 302 [establishing the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.